Then we have to make a distinction about what it means that they "had" the law. The Law was given at Sinai (circa 1300 BC), so technically they "had" it. There are some periods in history where they weren't paying attention to it, and in some parts of history where it seems to have gotten lost (your reference). But since there was still a priesthood and Temple even when the Law was lost, they were still responsible for the covenant expressed in it. For instance, if you lost your mortgage papers, it doesn't mean you don't have to pay or you're not responsible under the conditions of the contract. So I would not agree that the law was invalid.

OP was saying that a lot of things we see as bad now we're laws in ancient Israel, but if Israel didn't always have God's/Mosiac Law, then the point that it was legal there is invalid (also, you were correct in assuming I meant the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

> Deuteronomy 22:28-29 can, and is interpreted, in vastly different ways by Christians

Those are Bible translations (NIV, KJV, NRSV), not different interpretations.

> How do you know that? How do you know that a women in that culture would gladly marry the man that raped her?

From studying their culture. Marriage was much more a financial proposition than a romantic one. It was a joining of families, not a joining of lovers. It was a community exercise. Marriage was hardly ever about love in those days. What a woman looked for was financial stability and a place in the community.

> Do you think it is right that women should not be able to choose who they marry?

This thought wouldn't even pop into their heads in that culture in that day. It has nothing to do with "it is right." It's a common practice of our culture, but not even a thought in theirs.

> "Be careful of ethnocentrism" So do you think that they got it right then?

It's not a matter of "right" or "wrong." That was the practice of their culture, just as we have a different practice in ours.

> Apart from the countless times where it does give extremely specific instructions.

The Torah is legal wisdom, not legislation.

> So the Israelites were not to believe in another God or different Gods, but this this wasn't a command or a suggestion?

It wasn't a command or a suggestion. It was a statement of theological truth. Wisdom literature is typically interested in general guidelines that individual should bear in mind and apply as they make daily decisions that affect the direction of their lives.

> You said that the bible says that female slaves are to be let go after seven years. Exodus 21: 7 says completely the opposite... "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do." But heck maybe this is just one of those 'commandments' that the Isrealites don't have to actually follow...

Oh my goodness. The overriding principle is that of the Jubilee. 21.2: the seventh year, debt servants go free. They had complicated cultural practices, though, that made contingencies in various situations. When a free man gave a wife to another man who owed him something, certain conditions applied to that marriage. The man in the inferior position was often a pledge (one who worked as a servant, not a slave, and whose services functioned as security or collateral for a debt that was owed) or a debt-slave, as here in Exodus. Typically, the pledge or debt-slave could take his wife—and any children she had borne him—only by satisfying certain requirements. We are reading about standard procedures, but modifications were probably allowed if clearly established in a contractual agreement.

Vv. 7-11 are an example of casuistic (hypothetical situations) case law to guide a judge. They are neither legislation nor commands. Sometimes the women were bought not as debt-slaves, but as concubines (Lev. 25.48). In that case she was not free to be released. If the man does not follow through with his intent to make her a concubine (9), he can keep in the family by letting her be the concubine of his son, and treat her as a daughter. If the son takes other concubines or a wife, her basic needs are not to be neglected (10). She is not to be mistreated.

> the father can pay his debts off by selling his daughter into slavery.

Wrong every time you've said it. A father could put his daughter to work for another person to work off a debt.

> Yep, it clearly says that God created Eve to be a helper to Adam.

Using the same word God uses when He says He is a helper to Israel. It's not a position of inferiority.

> Are there any records of defecation in the bible?

Yes. 1 Samuel 24.3 and Judges 3.20-22.

> Numbers 31.

I wish you would do some research and not just read superficially. The Median territory was huge, ranging from the west in the Sinai Peninsula, north into Transjordan, east on the Gulf of Aqaba. They were a Bedouin tribe, semi-nomadic: many villages, some walled cities, and many shepherds who wandered freely throughout the region. Killing all of them is like to day killing all ISIS. It's just not possible with a single battle.

Secondly, they were going to war against their governmental officials (kings and regional rulers) and against their military, not against the population at large. You'll notice in Num. 31.6 that Moses "sent them into battle." In other words, there was a specific target and a specific group being battled against, not a widespread population of Bedouins. The "trumpets for signaling" shows they were all in the same geographic area. The Israelites are not riding through the entire Middle East slaughtering innocents. Here is it those particular Midianites associated with Moab that are targeted. This particular collection of villages and been hostile to Israel, and they had been a moral detriment to the people. They had instigated hostility against them, and it was time for military action. The Israelites did execute the 5 kings of Midian (Num. 31.8), but this is by no means a genocide. By executing the five kings, they are seeking to destroy their sense of identity (what holds them together as a people group), so that they become powerless and leaderless. The Midianites show up later in the times of the Judges (Judges 6.1), to confirm for us that the ethnic group was not wiped from the face of the earth. Gideon defeated them in Judges 7, but they're still around as a people group. The prophet Habakkuk (Hab. 3.7) mentions them in about 600 BC, so they're still around then.

> Ah, so it was like a mini-genocide then?

No, not even a mini-genocide. It was a battle against a coalition of Midianite kings centered in the Moab region (Num. 31.8).

> taking all the virgins for themselves.

Some young girls were taken back to become wives after a month of ritual purification (Deuteronomy. 21.10-14). There were carefully followed procedures to bring a woman into the household. In light of the highly sensitive nature of sexual purity in Israel and for Israel’s soldiers, specific protocols had to be followed. Rape was most certainly excluded as an extracurricular activity in warfare.

> We were talking about Dt. 22.28-29.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 can, and is interpreted, in vastly different ways by Christians

Lets take the NIV for instance: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

But let's compare that to the KJV: "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."

Or perhaps the NRSV: "If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, 29 the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives."

In fact if you just Google 'Deuteronomy 22:28-29 interpretation' you will find all sorts of different interpretations. In fact the very first result that pops up from a pretty well known apologetic website argues that theses verse don't actually say anything about a man raping a women.

> And you keep harping back to, "Well, Christians disagree about a lot of texts."

Yes, because Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is just one of many verses that Christians interpret differently.

> What I said was that in THEIR culture this was a worthy idea that they would have been glad to accept.

How do you know that? How do you know that a women in that culture would gladly marry the man that raped her?

This is besides the point though because there is absolutely nothing in your bible that says women get to choose who they marry.
Do you think it is right that women should not be able to choose who they marry?

> Be careful of ethnocentrism—thinking your culture has it right and other cultures "just don't know any better."

So do you think that they got it right then? Do you think the best way to deal with a rapist is to allow them to marry their victims?

> The Torah doesn't work that way. It's not legislation. It never tries to express every contingency and to cover every base. It gives general principles and legal wisdom.

Apart from the countless times where it does give extremely specific instructions.

> The first "word" (you shall have no other gods before me) is ruling out the concept that God operates within a pantheon or a divine assembly or with a consort. The Israelites were not to imagine another other gods in the presence of YHWH.

You say that but then literally in the next paragraph say...

> So it's neither a command nor a suggestion, but a theological statement of YHWH's right to sovereignty.

So the Israelites were not to believe in another God or different Gods, but this this wasn't a command or a suggestion? The Isrealites didn't have to obey the first commandment, or "Word" as you call it?

Is this the same for all the hundreds of commandments in the bible, are they just merely statements and not commandments?

> I'm quite familiar with the story. And I do read the Bible wholly. I was giving an example that the women aren't just dirt, commanded around like chattel, and left out of the decision-making process.

You are claiming that women in the bible can choose who they marry. I explained to you that the bible says absolutely nothing about a women being able to choose who she marries and you provided two specific verses that say absolutely nothing about a women being able to choose who she marries.

Rebecca didn't choose to marry Isaac. She decided to leave her family straight away because Abraham's servant was getting angry.

Abigail didn't choose to marry David. God killed her husband and David then sent his soldiers to get her.

Do you have a single example in the bible of a women choosing who she marries? Yes or no?

>Sigh. YOU NEED TO KNOW MORE THAN JUST THE WORDS IN THE VERSE.

You said that the bible says that female slaves are to be let go after seven years. Exodus 21: 7 says completely the opposite... "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do." But heck maybe this is just one of those 'commandments' that the Isrealites don't have to actually follow...

> Oh my. It's not chattel slavery, but how to take care of debts.

Yes like you said, the father can pay his debts off by selling his daughter into slavery.

> Genesis 2 is not about the material origin of Adam and Eve, but about God giving them roles and functions.

Yep, it clearly says that God created Eve to be a helper to Adam.

> The role and function of both of them, together, as equals.

If you have read the bible and come away with the impression that women are equal to men then we have clearly read two entirely different books, heck it is almost like we have interpreted it differently...

> There's no record to capital punishment for adultery.

Are there any records of defecation in the bible? Should we then assume that because there are no records to say that people took a shit that people therefore didn't shit?

> So freaking what if there are no specific records of women being killed for not being able to prove their virginity? Does that just excuse the specific commandment that they should be killed for not being able to prove their virginity? Should we just simply forget those verses?

> As far as the Midianites, it wasn't genocide...

"They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man." Numbers 31:7

"The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder." Numbers 31:9

"Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them." Numbers 31:14-15

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Number 31: 17-18

That sure sounds like a genocide to me...

> The Midianites were spread over a huge area, and genocide is not what's happening here.

Ah, so it was like a mini-genocide then? That makes it all better I suppose and totally justifies the Israelites taking all the virgins for themselves.

> I guess we need to stop the conversation.

If you are just going to pretend that women in the bible were treated equally and continue to claim that they could choose who they married then I think it is probably for the best.

Correct. Israel (by which you mean both the northern 10 tribes of Israel and the southern 2 tribe of Judah?) hardly ever got it right. The northern kingdom (Israel) never had a good king, and God judged them for their sin. The southern kingdom (Judah) had a few good kings (Hazekiah and Josiah were notable), but still generally a bum lot. They were judged in 586.

But, may I ask, what does this have to do with the OP's thesis that "God cannot be the standard of morality for humans"?

I would also like to add that in the bible, for most of its existence, the kingdom of Israel was seen as not following God, making it invalid. They were so detached at one point that in 2 Kings, a priest in Jerusalem finds old laws written by Moses that none of them knew existed buried in the temple.

> What are you talking about when you say ‘this text’? We are discussing how Christians interpret the bible.

We were talking about Dt. 22.28-29. I gave the interpretation of the text, and you wrote, "Or maybe you have got it completely wrong? There are countless different ways that the bible could be interpreted. How have you determined that your particular interpretation is correct?" I said there aren't different interpretations of THIS text, so don't muddy the water with "all texts." I asked you to show me how my interpretation of THIS TEXT was wrong. I asked you to show me variant interpretation of THIS TEXT. And you keep harping back to, "Well, Christians disagree about a lot of texts." I keep saying that's beside the point. You're calling into question my analysis of THIS text, and I keep challenging you to show me how I'm wrong. But you keep going to generic "Christians interpret the Bible differently." That's not refined enough to show me how anything I said was wrong about THIS text.

> we are discussing why the heck your God thought it was a good idea to give specific instructions that could force women to marry their rapists.

Yes, and I've already answered this twice. It does little good for me to keep driving over the same ground.

> that they just didn't know any better, but surely your God should have known better?

I never said they didn't know any better. What I said was that in THEIR culture this was a worthy idea that they would have been glad to accept. Be careful of ethnocentrism—thinking your culture has it right and other cultures "just don't know any better."

> but once again there is absolutely nothing in the bible that says the victim of a rape gets to choose whether she marries her rapist.

Yes, I've already shown you this several times.

> but once again there is absolutely nothing in the bible that says the victim of a rape gets to choose whether she marries her rapist.

The Torah doesn't work that way. It's not legislation. It never tries to express every contingency and to cover every base. It gives general principles and legal wisdom. That fact that it doesn't say that *specifically* is meaningless. But I've explained this.

It's like if I said to you, "Don't do anything I wouldn't do," and you say, "Well, you never said I couldn't ..." You can see how that's meaningless. I was never trying to cover every base and address every contingency.

> Yes, but if you do as you suggest and read the bible wholly

I'm quite familiar with the story. And I do read the Bible wholly. I was giving an example that the women aren't just dirt, commanded around like chattel, and left out of the decision-making process. We are not to imagine that the women were treated poorly or like ignoramuses with no rights. That's not how it was.

> Once again, I think you need to read your bible a bit more.

I know the Bible backwards and forwards. And, yes, I know this story quite well also.

> Exodus 21: 7-11 doesn’t say that at all…

Sigh. YOU NEED TO KNOW MORE THAN JUST THE WORDS IN THE VERSE.

> Well I suppose if you just ignore the whole ‘Being able to sell a woman into slavery and the slave master then being able to make her his wife’ thing then sure.

Oh my. It's not chattel slavery, but how to take care of debts. It was their method of employment, debt repayment, and even marriage arrangements, which were more financial deals in those days than romantic relationships. But I've already said this, too.

> The women in the bible are second class citizens. The very first chapters of the bible set the tone when in Genesis 2:20-24 God creates Eve to be a helper to Adam.

Sigh. Genesis 2 is not about the material origin of Adam and Eve, but about God giving them roles and functions. The role and function of both of them, together, as equals, is in Gn. 1.27-27: to rule the Earth and subdue it. We get to chapter 2, which is also not about material manufacture, and we learn more about their roles and functions. They are made to be priests in God's kingdom (Gn. 2.15: "work it and care for it" are priestly terms, not agricultural ones). Then to the rest of the chapter it is showing us that the female is every much his equal (bone of his bones, flesh of his flesh) and that the two of them function in kinship relationship (leave and cling to). There is nothing in Genesis 1 or 2 to show that the woman was inferior. The word "helpmeet" is a compound word unique to the setting, but one of those words is what God uses to describe himself as the "helper" of Israel. So if God is not a "second class citizen" to Israel, then neither is the woman second-class to man. She is his *helper* as God is Israel's helper. There's nothing barbaric about it except to people who only superficially read the words.

> Well we do have records of God commanding the Israelites to commit genocide against the Midianites, with specific instructions to keep the virgins for themselves, but are you really suggesting that just because we don’t have records of women that were killed for being unable to prove their virginity that this somehow excuses the specific instructions that say they should be?

Oh my gosh, we're talking about adultery and you shift to the Midianites? Just as other examples about them not killing people for adultery, the whole book of Hosea is about an adulterous relationship, and Hosea is commanded to marry her again, not kill her. And when Joseph thought his wife, Mary, had committed adultery he decided to put her away from him quietly. There's no record to capital punishment for adultery.

As far as the Midianites, it wasn't genocide, but the judgment on their central government. The Midianites were spread over a huge area, and genocide is not what's happening here. This deserves much more space than I can give it here, but just a little bit of research shows that there was no genocide, nor even intentioned genocide, against the Midianite people.

> Ah, so because only a few were executed for being unable to prove their virginity that makes it ok.

Oh my... This has gotten ridiculous. Maybe we should break off this conversation.

> Great, so could you perhaps give an overview of why you think the explicit instructions given in the Torah (The book of ‘instructions’ as you called it yourself) are not actual instructions and a merely a guide of what to do?

Sure. TheTorah is a covenant agreement between the suzerain, YHWH, and His vassals, Israel. The point of it was to establish a reputation for YHWH as the patron of order (not to serve as legislation or to offer an ideal social structure. It address through legal wisdom how the Israelite people should maintain their culture's concept of order, enhancing the sovereign's reputation as a competent, wise, and just administrator of world order. It operates within the confines of the ancient cognitive environment, not in the context of our modern legal environment.

> Ah, so for instance the Hebrews didn’t have to follow the commandment to have no other God other than Yahweh? That was merely a suggestion of what they should do?

First of all, what we call "The Ten Commandments" are not called that in the Bible. In the Bible they are called "the ten words." Secondly, the first "word" (you shall have no other gods before me) is ruling out the concept that God operates within a pantheon or a divine assembly or with a consort. The Israelites were not to imagine another other gods in the presence of YHWH. His power is absolute. Any other alleged deity is powerless; they have no status worthy of worship.

So it's neither a command nor a suggestion, but a theological statement of YHWH's right to sovereignty.

> A financial asset that can be sold. But yeah they are not really ‘property’, (and everything else you wrote)

Sigh. I guess we need to stop the conversation.

> What I'm seriously suggesting is that Catholics and Protestants, Evangelicals and liberals don't interpret this text differently.

What are you talking about when you say ‘this text’? We are discussing how Christians interpret the bible. When the two major denominations of Christianity can not even agree which books of the bible are canon there is clearly a pretty major difference in their interpretation of the bible

> We're not discussing God being creative in fabricating something.

Yes, we are discussing why the heck your God thought it was a good idea to give specific instructions that could force women to marry their rapists. Why does pretty much every modern-day society recognise that this would be absolutely abhorrent and yet your God didn't see any problem with it? I get what you are trying to say about it being a different time with a different culture, that they just didn't know any better, but surely your God should have known better?

> I've explained several times that we take the Torah as a whole.

Yes, you have said that already but once again there is absolutely nothing in the bible that says the victim of a rape gets to choose whether she marries her rapist. We do however have specific verses that say it is the father who chooses.

> In Genesis 24.57, in the discussions about marriage, they confer with Rebecca (the bride to be).

Yes, but if you do as you suggest and read the bible wholly you will clearly see in the previous verses of this story how Rebecca doesn't choose to marry Isaac. Genesis 24 describes Abraham telling his servant to go and find a wife for Isaac. Not just any wife mind, it must be a wife from his father’s family. The servant loads up some camels with all the finest things, presumably to buy a wife, and heads off. He pulls up out outside a town, says a little prayer to God basically saying let the next woman who comes up to me be the one you have chosen for Isaac and ta-da! Rebekah turns up. He remarks how beautiful she is, and how great it is that she is a virgin. He gives her some bling, does another quick prayer to God thanking him for finding a bride for Isaac and then off they pop to her father. Rebekah's father seems impressed by the bling. He confirms that he is Abraham's nephew and after a couple of veiled threats from the servant he agrees to give Rebekah to him, only after he receives some pretty decent bling himself of course. Rebekah's only choice in all this was when she decided to leave immediately with the servant because he was starting to get angry at not being able to leave with her straight away.

> In 1 Samuel 25.41, Abigail decides on her on to become David's wife.

Once again, I think you need to read your bible a bit more. 1 Samuel 25 describes how David and his men turn up at the house of Nabal and demand food and supplies. Nabal refuses so they come back later and threaten Nabal's wife, Abigail. She collects some food and supplies and goes to David and pleads for mercy. He grants her mercy and lets her on her way. She goes home and a few days later her husband gets struck down by God. David praises the Lord for killing Nabal and then sends his men to go and get Abigail. Abigail, unsurprisingly, agrees to go and then tells David that she is his servant and will wash his feet. Oh, and the chapter ends with David taking yet another wife after giving one of his wives to someone else.

You have provided two examples that you claim show that women in the bible can choose who they marry but your examples do nothing of the sort, if anything they just support the notion that they can not.

> You're talking about Ex. 21.7-11. Again, some study on your part would be of value rather than just surface reading. And some background information about the culture. The section is about marriage. You'll notice here that the sale of a daughter into slavery is a marriage arrangement as a way of paying off a debt. As such, once the debt is paid, or if the seventh year came around, she could go free

Exodus 21: 7-11 doesn’t say that at all… “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.” Exodus 21:7. In fact if you read the previous verses it just further reinforces the instruction that female servants do not go free… “If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.”

> But if the daughter wished to marry the man who was now her "employer," so to speak, that was an option as well.

Nope… “ If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself…” Exodus 21:8. She doesn’t get to choose if the master selects her for himself, he selects her. In fact, just a few verses down it describes how the master can select her for his son if he wants to

> There is nothing about this that is brutal.

Well I suppose if you just ignore the whole ‘Being able to sell a woman into slavery and the slave master then being able to make her his wife’ thing then sure.

> Excuse me?

The women in the bible are second class citizens. The very first chapters of the bible set the tone when in Genesis 2:20-24 God creates Eve to be a helper to Adam. Given how utterly barbaric the bible treats women I really don’t see why you find it so hard to accept that it clearly gives instructions on how a women can be forced to marry her rapist.

> Though they had legal right to exercise capital punishment, there's no record that anyone ever did.

Well we do have records of God commanding the Israelites to commit genocide against the Midianites, with specific instructions to keep the virgins for themselves, but are you really suggesting that just because we don’t have records of women that were killed for being unable to prove their virginity that this somehow excuses the specific instructions that say they should be?

> Just as in our society man criminals are sentenced to death, but few are executed.

Ah, so because only a few were executed for being unable to prove their virginity that makes it ok. Gotcha…

> I digested "The Lost World of the Torah" by Walton and Walton…

Great, so could you perhaps give an overview of why you think the explicit instructions given in the Torah (The book of ‘instructions’ as you called it yourself) are not actual instructions and a merely a guide of what to do?

> None of the Torah is legislative.

Ah, so for instance the Hebrews didn’t have to follow the commandment to have no other God other than Yahweh? That was merely a suggestion of what they should do?

> They were only "property" in the sense that they were an important part of the economic picture—a financial asset to the family.

A financial asset that can be sold. But yeah they are not really ‘property’, it’s not like the father can sell his daughter and be financially rewarded for doing so… Oh wait…

> If the family were in debt, the fam could farm out themselves or the kids as work for hire.

Cool, a good old slice of child labor never harmed anyone.

> The "master" didn't own the person.

“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.” Leviticus 25:44-46.

> “When the debt was paid, the worker could go "free."

Not if they were a women. ““If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.” Exodus 21:7

> The dad wasn't selling his daughter to make money. She was working for his lender to pay off a debt.

Ah, so the father was simply selling his daughter to pay off his debts. Great.

> The dowry (given by the father to the bride) provided security for the wife.

Huh? Where the heck have you got the idea that the father gives the dowry to his daughter?

> She has more rights than a male in the sense that she can be freed from slavery.

I think this is the third time I have had to quote this now… “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.” Exodus 21:7.

> but surely surely surely the God who is the source of all wisdom and knowledge and goodness and love could have divinely orchestrated some sequence of events where that decision wasn't a problem. but he didn't. so instead the woman could be forced to either be ostracized or live with the rapist.

Except that this is a poor solution only to YOU in YOUR time and in YOUR culture. You think completely differently than they did. Your whole perspective is colored by your era, your culture, and you're worldview. You swim in a completely different cultural river, and yet you are judging them by your situation. It's an illegitimate practice. Who's to say that the women in that era weren't simply tickled pink with this solution, thanking their lucky stars every night. So maybe, just maybe, the God who is the source of all wisdom, etc., divinely orchestrated an awesome plan for their time and era. It's like you're guilty of presentism: OUR era sees things right, and all other cultures just had it wrong, and they did it wrong, and they saw it poorly, and God is to blame for being cruel and stupid. To me it's just ethnocentrism that you think OUR culture knows what's best and does it right, and their culture had it so wrong and that God couldn't possibly be good because of it.

> We're not discussing God being creative in fabricating something. We're analyzing their culture and what a woman would think is an agreeable solution in their culture.

This is what gets me in all the threads on this discussion I've read. Maybe you are discussing what a female in their culture would find acceptable or agreeable. And maybe you're right that a woman would find it unacceptable or unagreeable in their culture to be able to choose to have nothing to do with the man who raped her and also not be celibate or ostracized as a consequence of choosing not to have anything to do with the rapist.

but surely surely surely the God who is the source of all wisdom and knowledge and goodness and love could have divinely orchestrated some sequence of events where that decision wasn't a problem. but he didn't. so instead the woman could be forced to either be ostracized or live with the rapist.

and honestly, it makes no sense to me that anyone could see this as a worthwhile representation of the chosen people of the good god or of love himself.